On Oct 22, 2007, at 7:00 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> The purpose of the process is to get consensus of the member
> organizations participating in the WG. In this case, we seem to
> have failed to achieve that, and I think we should void the
> resolution.
I essentially agree with you. Ian and I discussed this, and will
suggest at the next meeting that in order to give people who can't
attend the teleconf's a better chance to participate in decision
making we will allow a 1 week "cooling off period" on all decisions,
and revisit them if substantive objections are raised. We need to
discuss details, but I would think that the objections would be best
presented clearly and dispassionately, with explanation of the
motivations, and constructive suggestions for alternatives.
Participants should assume that that Ian and I take all concerns
seriously, whether expressed vociferously or meekly, and, at least
initially, bring concerns that we are not doing so to our attention
by sending mail to team-owl-chairs@w3.org
As a minor point I will note that at the moment, due to circumstances
beyond his control, Jim's organization isn't a member organization.
That will be rectified soon, as I understand it. That doesn't change
my view on the importance of his views being taken into account, but
it is worth mentioning.
Also, although the goal is to achieve consensus, and that is my own
goal, the process includes provision for voting, which means that
consensus is not strictly required.
I am a little concerned about how we will make progress, given that
Jim has a number of views on various matters of importance but can't
attend the meeting. I would urge him to consider nominating someone
else in his organization that can attend the meeting so there can be
active representation of his position during discussion and voting.
> I also think that in general, we should have at least some text
> drafting proprosals, in the agenda 24 hrs before the question will
> be put.
While I think this is a good idea in general, I wonder if that will
be always be possible, and wouldn't want to require it. Do you agree
that the cooling off period we suggest effectively addresses the issue?
> Obviously this is not necessary for uncontroversial proposals - but
> you really only know if a proposal is controversial or not, if it
> generated controversy!
Exactly!
A final point. Ivan has clarified that the heartbeat is relative to
the first teleconference, which pushes the date out a bit. However,
in the interest of addressing desire of those members would like
there be a publication sooner, I think we should think creatively
about how to do that in a way that addresses the concerns of you,
Jim, and others who had some worries about this. Could you, Jim, and
anyone else who is similarly concerned could make some suggestions
along those lines?
My understanding of the argument for releasing earlier is that we
would more likely get useful comments from people outside the WG that
could help us in our efforts, and that it would be possible to
clearly indicate our purpose in releasing the draft and that it does
not represent decision of consensus yet.
-Alan